Timothy L. Jarquin v. Danny R. Blanks, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member and Manager of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; Barlow J. Cook, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; James R. Washington, III, Individually and in His Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; And Mary Leblanc, Individually and in Her Capacity as Director of Human Resources of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 21, 2019
• Docket: 2019-CA-0309
• Status: Published

Opinion

TIMOTHY L. JARQUIN * NO. 2019-CA-0309

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL DANNY R. BLANKS, * INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS FOURTH CIRCUIT CAPACITY AS A MEMBER * AND MANAGER OF STATE OF LOUISIANA PONTCHARTRAIN ******* PARTNERS, L.L.C.; BARLOW J. COOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF PONTCHARTRAIN PARTNERS, L.L.C.; JAMES R. WASHINGTON, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF PONTCHARTRAIN PARTNERS, L.L.C.; AND MARY LEBLANC, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF PONTCHARTRAIN PARTNERS, L.L.C.

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-10461, DIVISION “G-11” Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge ****** Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods, Judge Paula A. Brown)

Stephen D. Marx P.J. Stakelum III CHEHARDY, SHERMAN. WILLIAMS, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Jason R. Anders ANDERS LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

JUDGMENT VACATED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AUGUST 21, 2019 Appellant, Pontchartrain Partners, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as

“PPLLC”), seeks review of the district court’s December 27, 2018 judgment

denying its motion to quash, which it filed in response to a request for subpoena

duces tecum filed by Appellee, Timothy Jarquin.1 For the reasons that follow, we

vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand this matter to the district

court for specific findings on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the

facts of this case.

BACKGROUND

This matter has been before this Court a number of times to address different

issues. The relevant factual background is set forth in this Court’s opinion Jarquin

v. Blanks, 2018-0157 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/15/18), 254 So.3d 10. Of note, the named

defendants in the lawsuit are all members of PPLLC, with James Washington, III,

serving as general counsel to the company.

1 A judgment is final and appealable pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 1841, when it “determines the merits in whole or in part” The judgment at issue determines the merits in whole between Appellant and Appellee.

1 On December 18, 2017, Appellee filed a request for subpoena duces tecum

directed to the records custodian of Appellant, a non-party to the litigation.

Therein, Appellee requested production of documents and things as described in

thirty-five separate paragraphs. Many of the requests specifically name Mr.

Washington.

Appellant responded to the subpoena with a motion to quash filed on

January 4, 2018. While the motion to quash argued several bases in support of

quashal, Appellant briefed only one such basis on appeal; that is, the subpoena

calls for the production of records potentially protected by the attorney-client

privilege.

The district court held a hearing on the motion on November 30, 2018. At

the hearing, the district found that Appellee was entitled to all the documents

requested. The judgment was reduced to writing on December 27, 2018.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The question of whether an attorney-client relationship exists is a question of

fact, and thus subject to manifest error analysis. Keith v. Keith, 48,919, pp. 9-10

(La.App. 2 Cir. 5/15/14), 140 So.3d 1202, 1208-09. A trial court’s ruling on a

motion to quash is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Weatherford

Int’l, 463 So.2d 751, 753 (La.App. 4. Cir. 1985).

2 ANALYSIS

The existence of an attorney-client relationship turns largely on the client’s

subjective belief that it exists. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Bosworth, 481 So.2d

567, 571 (La. 1986). This Court, in Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1999-

1421, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/10/01), 798 So.2d 1210, 1216, stated:

To establish attorney-client privilege, several elements must be proven: (1) the holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the communication was made to an attorney or his subordinate in a professional capacity; (3) the communication was made outside the presence of strangers; (4) the communication was made to obtain a legal opinion or services; and (5) the privilege has not been waived.

When such a relationship exists, “[c]ommunications between a client and his

attorney made with the expectation of confidentiality are protected . . . and cannot

be disclosed without the client’s permission. Pitard v. Stillwater Transfer &

Storage Co., 589 So.2d 1127, 1128 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1991).

In the instant matter, the district court provided no specific factual analysis

for ruling that Appellee was entitled to all the information sought in its request for

subpoena duces tecum. Mr. Washington is specifically named in a number of the

requests, and the district court made no finding as to whether those

communications involving Mr. Washington were made in his capacity as general

counsel, and thus protected by the privilege. Accordingly, it is unclear from the

facts presented whether the district court made any specific findings in this regard.

Without these findings, we cannot determine whether the district court properly

exercised its discretion when it denied the motion to quash. See Cleco Corp. v.

Sansing, 2009-0806, pp. 1-2 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So.3d 555, 556.

3 CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgment of the district court, and

remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion. JUDGMENT VACATED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS